CITY OF SARASOTA Planning and Development Division Neighborhood and Development Services Department MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD/LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Planning Board Chris Gallagher, Chair Members Present: Vald Svekis, Vice Chair Members Jennifer Ahearn-Koch, Robert Lindsay, and Mort Siegel Planning Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Michael Connolly, Deputy City Attorney; David Smith, General Manager-Negnborhod & Development Services Courtney Mendez, AICP,Senior Planner; John Nopper, Coordinator-Public Broadcasting: Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALLI MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Gallagher called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and General Manager Smith [as Secretary to the Board] called the roll. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were. no changes to the Order of the Day. III. LAND USE ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Reading ofthe Pledge of Conduct Secretary Smith read the Pledge of Conduct aloud. Attorney Connolly reviewed quasi-judicial hearing procedures and the recommended time limits for the petitions. Board Members agreed to the time limits. The oath was administered to all intending to speak regarding the petitions on the agenda. Attorney Connolly stated four applications for affected person status had been received from Mr. Ray Hautamaki, Ms. Janet Schmidt, Ms. Georgia Court, and Ms. Ann Diven. None were present and therefore their requests were denied. PB Chair Gallagher requested disclosure of any ex-parte communications. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she had visited the site with Courtney Mendez and had a conversation with Kelly Kirschner, former City Commissioner, regarding the background of the project. PB Chair Gallagher stated he was a former employee, up Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 2 of 13 until about one year ago, of JPA, the applicant's S architect, and was part of early conversations regarding the project. B. Quasi-judicial Public Hearings 1. HOTEL SARASOTA [1255 & 1289 PALM AVENUE): Application 14-ADP-03 proposes five adjustments including three Adjustments to setback requirements in the Downtown Core (DTC) Zone District as specified in Table VI-1003 oft the Zoning Code (2002 Edition) and two Adjustments to the Building Design Standards in the Downtown Zone Districts as listed in Table VI-1004 ofthe Zoning Code for the Hotel Sarasota project located on property with a street address of 1289 and 1255 N. Palm Avenue. The following adjustments are requested: 1) Adjustment to maximum building setback on Palm Avenue; 2) Adjustment to maximum building setback on Cocoanut Avenue; 3) Adjustment to the dimension of chamfered corner at Palm Avenue/Cocoanut Avenue intersection in relation to setback; 4) Adjustment to the dimension of chamfered corner at Palm Avenue/Cocoanut Avenue intersection in relation to length; and 5) Adjustment to the dimension of chamfered corner at Cocoanut Avenue/First Street intersection in relation to length. [Courtney Mendez, AICP, Senior Planner). Applicant Presentation: Mr. Joel Freedman, Agent, Ms. Brenda Patten, Attorney and Planner, Mr. Angus Rogers, Developer, Mr. Jonathan Parks, Architect, and Mr. Steven Weeks appeared and presented a video of the proposed development showing community support for the project. Mr. Rogers stated local civic leaders and the City have embraced the project, the proposal is for an arts themed boutique hotel in the heart of downtown, the applicants acknowledge the importance of engaging the community, the hotel will be walkable and pedestrian friendly, and the hotel is designed to celebrate vistas and the surrounding community. Mr. Rogers presented graphics depicting how the corner of Palm Avenue and Cocoanut Avenue is celebrated, noted guests will have vistas of the bay, and stated the area's arts and theatre community has been incorporated through the proposed art gallery, outdoor dining, and public congregation areas. Mr. Rogers stated the face of the building has been pulled back, indoor/ outdoor dining is proposed at the intersection of Palm and Cocoanut, and the second floor will contain ballrooms and meeting space, with guest rooms above. Mr. Rogers stated the hotel will be interactive and open to the public. Mr. Parks discussed the staff report stating the grade of the property from Cocoanut to Palm is 5 12 feet, the proposal anticipates the completion of the proposed round about, the goal is to keep the lobby level, noted the property is in a flood zone, the lobby has been elevated to flood level which will allow the hotel to be open 365 days a year, Longboat Key residents will use as a shelter during a storm, due to having to elevate transitions are being used to embrace walkability, and the requested adjustments will enhance walkability. Mr. Parks further stated the entry on Cocoanut has been pulled back to allow space for activities that cross over the public sidewalk (people pulling up and unloading luggage, valets, etc.), the main entrance is proposed for Cocoanut since traffic will come primarily from US41 or off of Fruitville Road onto Cocoanut, canopies are proposed to provide protection from the weather as well as Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 3 of 13 containing light spillage, and an on-grade entry into the café is provided off of 1st Street. Ms. Patten stated the applicants are requesting five adjustments, noted they support the staff report and thanked Ms. Mendez for her work, stated the first four requested adjustments relate to building setbacks on Palm and Cocoanut as well as the chamfered corner, and noted the requests are driven by the change in elevation. Ms. Patten stated the applicants are required to build the finished floor at the FEMA elevation, at the southwest corner of Palm and Cocoanut the difference between the sidewalk elevation and FEMA elevation is 5' 4", building to code would require a 5' solid concrete wall on the south side of the building, in order to achieve the stepped back levels into the building greater setbacks and chamfered corner are necessary, the elevated levels will contain outdoor dining and streetscape, and stated the fifth adjustment is for a non-parallel wall and revolving door and is required due to the convergence of 1st Street, Cocoanut and the alley and also to celebrate that corner since that is the entrance to the art gallery which is the whole theme, and stated the design with the setbacks, frontages, and elevations have created a better product than the code requirements due to the creation of more outdoor life activities. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned how the applicants arrived at 24' for the setback on Palm noting 5' is the maximum and questioned if interim numbers were looked at. Mr. Parks stated that was driven by the need to go up 5' 4" which is being accomplished through a series of stairs, landing areas and handrails that have to meet code minimums. Ms. Patten noted there are other considerations such as the fact that Palm and Cocoanut are primary streets which require the corner to be celebrated, the idea is to create a lively pedestrian atmosphere, stepping up and back allows for the landings to be usable space that can hold chairs, outdoor dining, etc. Mr. Parks noted the setback allows for better vista views along Palm. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated she agrees going back 5' then straight up not pedestrian friendly and noted staff's comments stating they have not reviewed the sidewalk café. Mr. Rogers stated like Miami Beach, Sarasota has an ambiance that promotes interaction, their proposed design creates meaningful space, the applicants will have to come back and apply for the permit for the sidewalk café, noted the multiple layers are more engaging than one mass of people at one level, and stated he feels the design is very important to the project. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned the status of the request. Ms. Patten stated the project is complicated, the applicants responded to the City's Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) in November of 2011, pieces of the project have been going through the process since then, the outdoor dining has not been addressed yet since the design needs to be approved before pursuing the sidewalk café, and stated there is a redevelopment agreement, purchase and sale agreement, and parking agreement going on that are not tied together yet. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned what the definition of a boutique hotel is. Mr. Parks stated it is more about the experience, each one is designed and integrated into the community, and stated this project is designed around Sarasota' S arts culture. PB: member Lindsay noted the outdoor dining is open directly to the street on the plans, stated in most designs access to the outdoor dining is through the hotel, and Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 4 of 13 noted that is not inviting to people on the street. Mr. Rogers stated the outdoor dining will be open to the guests and locals, if locals are not using the outdoor dining the applicants have missed the mark, and stated the applicants want their hotel to be where locals refer people to. PB member Lindsay questioned if the applicants are anticipating a setup where access would be through the hotel. Mr. Rogers stated access will be available to anyone from the outside, the garage, the guest suites, and walk-ins. Mr. Parks stated the concept is all about the street experience. Mr. Freedman stated sidewalk cafés are permitted on the City's property, it is seamless between the project and the sidewalk, and noted that is the reason the applicants feel granting the additional setback meets the intent of the Downtown Master Plan of creating interaction between the sidewalk and building and in fact enhances that interaction. PB member Siegel questioned when the construction of the project is anticipated to begin noting he has represented high end hotels all over the world and knows the obstacles. Mr. Rogers stated construction is anticipated to begin in late December. PB member Siegel questioned if the hotel would be owner managed or managed by a professional company. Mr. Rogers stated it will be both since he is the owner but also cO-owns the management company that will operate the hotel. PB member Siegel questioned what kind of operating control will be in the documents noting his questions relate to neighborhood issues which are important, and questioned if Mr. Rogers will retain supervisory control of the day to day operations. Mr. Rogers stated a management company will be hired however he is the link because he is co-owner of the management company and will also retain ownership of the hotel. PB member Siegel stated the project is in an area with conflicting interests and questioned if the applicants had contacted any residential groups. Mr. Rogers stated the applicants have met with multiple groups including Bay Plaza, the Opera, Florida Studio Theatre, Sarasota Alliance for Business, and the Chamber and noted all had voted unanimously in support of the project. Mr. Rogers also noted Palm Avenue and Cocoanut Avenue will stay open during construction. PB member Siegel noted that shows good community support and questioned if the hotel would have dedicated spots in the parking garage. Mr. Rogers stated the applicants have a parking agreement with the City. Ms. Patten stated there are 732 spaces in the garage, 400 of those have to be available to the public at all times, and the spaces allocated for the hotel will be managed by a parking manager. PB member Siegel noted the streets in the area were not built to accommodate the traffic we now have, stated he uses Palm Avenue often, questioned if the traffic flow would be directed north, and questioned if the City is planning to widen the street. Mr. Freedman stated the cross section for 1st Street, including the proposed roundabout, is completely redesigned which is why the proposed entry point is important SO vehicles are not backing up onto Palm Avenue. PB member Siegel questioned if any thought had been given to a traffic safety plan. Mr. Rogers stated a required traffic study has been completed and the queuing of the vehicles was part of that. Mr. Freedman stated the traffic pattern is all right turns SO there will be no crossing traffic. PB: member Siegel stated dedicated parking spaces on the higher floors of the garage would not be efficient. Mr. Rogers stated there are three primary parking areas, self-parking, short term valet parking, and long term valet parking. Mr. Rogers stated people coming for the weekend who will not need Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 5 of1 13 their cars can use the higher floors while those coming for a luncheon or other event would be parked in an area where their vehicle would be more readily available. Ms. Patten stated there will be a pedestrian connection from the garage to the hotel on the second level. PB member Siegel questioned the applicant's thoughts on balancing their entertainment, music, etc. with the residential interests in the immediate area. Mr. Parks stated the windows do not open SO no noise will come from the guest rooms. PB member Siegel questioned the impact of the noise from the dining area on Bay Plaza and Marina Tower. Mr. Parks stated canopies at the ground level will help to contain noise from the street while high walls and trees at the pool area on the roof will buffer those sounds. PB member Svekis noted the applicants had stated in their transmittal that the hotel will have an upper upscale rating as described by Smith Travel Research and questioned what hotel in our area is comparable. Mr. Rogers stated four star hotels such as the JW Marriott, Westin, and W are comparable, noting the Ritz Carlton is a five star. PB member Svekis questioned why the graphic shown did not match the plans the Planning Board received. Mr. Parks stated the drawings have been corrected since the submittal noting several meetings have been held with the City's Engineering staff and the plans are still being modified. PB member Svekis stated the Planning Board did not receive copies of the traffic study and questioned the number of cars that can be stacked in the driveway. Mr. Rogers stated up to 14 cars can be stacked. PB: member Svekis questioned if that would be higher a peak times such as check-in. Mr. Rogers stated keeping the drive open is the function of the valet service, noted the peak occurs mostly during events, luncheons, etc. which are scheduled in advance, and sufficient valet services will be provided during those times. PB member Svekis questioned how the valets will operate and the route the valets would take between the parking garage and the hotel. Mr. Rogers stated valets will be stationed in the garage with radios. PB member Svekis noted the applicants have stated the dining areas will be open to everyone however the narrative references public/ private dining areas and questioned what the difference is. Mr. Rogers stated the public is welcome to private events noting there is a private specialty dining area. Ms. Patten stated she had written the narrative and verified the sidewalk dining is referenced as public due to the location in the right-of-way while the dining area on the property owned by the hotel is referenced as private. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the applicants had considered designating the drop-off area for the cars on the side of the parking garage sO the lanes on Palm Avenue were not blocked by backed up traffic. Mr. Rogers stated it is a matter of presenting the front door, notes access to the hotel will be from Fruitville Road to Cocoanut Avenue or Palm Avenue, and stated to hide the entrance in the bowels of the building would be uninviting. Mr. Parks stated people will be arriving via cars and a connecter to the garage does not meet the standards of 4 star hotel operations. Mr. Rogers noted the ramp to the garage backs up and adding to that would create an unworkable situation. Mr. Parks stated the applicants will maintain the area around the hotel entrance, including the landscaping. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the applicants have considered directing traffic towards the back and pedestrians to the front stating that would enhance the pedestrian experience, and noted several other venues in the area that generate a lot pedestrian activity. PB member Ahearn- Koch stated concerns that pedestrians will approach the hotel area and feel they have Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 6 of 13 to change direction because they think they are actually entering the hotel noting the proposed design creates a public walkway with a private feeling. Mr. Parks stated the canopies create an embracing space, noting the design is great for people watching SO people tend to hang out there creating an attractive nuisance. Mr. Parks stated the redesign of the intersection will make the area even more attractive for pedestrians. Mr. Rogers noted the entrance has been recessed, there is glass along the entire frontage, with the art gallery there is an inviting quality of window shopping, and a lot of inviting activity to draw pedestrians in. Mr. Parks noted Louie's Modern is a good example. Ms. Patten stated the terraced outdoor dining is on the private property, the public sidewalk will have to be maintained, and staff will ensure if a sidewalk café is approved adequate pathways will be maintained. Ms. Patten noted most of the activities shown on the renderings are on private property which is the reason for needing the setback adjustments. Mr. Freedman stated there is functional problem with creating an entrance/drop-off on the side due to traffic circulation issues. Mr. Parks stated the applicant's S intent is to place all activity along the street. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned how dependent the applicants are on the roundabout. Mr. Parks stated the project was designed to work with or without the roundabout. PB Chair Gallagher noted discrepancies between the site plan and the renderings, questioned where the column line was and if the columns had been eliminated at the porte cochere. Mr. Parks stated the columns had been pulled back. PB Chair Gallagher noted the requested setbacks are much larger than the required setbacks however it appears the building line is where it should be while the columns come out. Mr. Parks stated the applicants were presenting a conservative approach. PB Chair Gallagher stated if the column line is used as the building frontage the issues of going beyond the required 5' are at the corner and where the porte cochere is. PB Chair Gallagher requested an explanation as to how the awning requirements are being met. Mr. Parks stated the width varies from 8'3" to 10 excluding the celebrated corner where it is 6'. Ms. Patten noted requests for major adjustments go to the Planning Board however minor adjustments have also been submitted to staff that include the awnings, and stated part of the reason for the requested adjustment to the awning length is the desire to ensure the view along the glass frontage is not obstructed. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the height of the awnings needed adjusted. Ms. Patten confirmed those did not. PB Chair Gallagher questioned the proximity of the water feature to the roundabout. Mr. Parks stated the idea was to create cut corners to give more back to the street and it was meant to be an asset. Mr. Parks stated the applicant's willingness to do more. Mr. Bill Waddill appeared and stated the driveway was relocated to facilitate pedestrian crossing. Mr. Parks stated he had discussions with the Urban Design Studio regarding making the crossing flush like Lemon Avenue however staff had pushed them back to a more traditional approach. Mr. Parks stated staff wanted the roundabout defined while the applicants wanted more walkability than staff would allow. Mr. Waddill stated the roundabout was designed consistent with other roundabouts in the City. PB Chair Gallagher questioned what Mr. Waddill's thoughts on landscaping are. Mr. Waddill stated he is not a fan of obstructing pedestrians. Mr. Parks stated there is a difference between path and place and the applicants are trying to create place at the corner and paths Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 7 of 13 further out. Mr. Waddill noted staff wants a balanced approach between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. PB: member Svekis questioned if there is a defined sidewalk along Palm and Cocoanut. Mr. Rogers stated yes while Mr. Parks noted the sidewalk is actually the widest in town. PB: member Svekis questioned if there could be picketing all the way around the hotel. Attorney Connolly stated potentially noting sidewalks are a public forum. PB member Svekis questioned if the design of the roundabout was final. Mr. Rogers stated the applicants have been meeting with staff. PB member Svekis questioned if Florida Studio Theatre is losing parking spaces on Cocoanut. Mr. Parks stated replacement parking is being provided for noting Duany had recommended getting rid of parking along medians in the Downtown Master Plan. Mr. Rogers stated replacement parking will be created along the sidewalk. Mr. Waddill stated Florida Studio Theatre was more concerned about pedestrians. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned what the wall by the porte cochere was. Mr. Parks stated that was a backdrop. Mr. Rogers stated the City had requested a redesign, the applicants are working with the City, and noted basically it keeps people being dropped off from going into the right-of-way. Ms. Patten reminded the Planning Board that they are only voting on the requested adjustments, not the site plan. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Mendez appeared and stated the applicants had given a thorough presentation, discussed the technical aspects of the criteria for adjustments, stated the adjustment to the setback on Palm Avenue was the most important due to grade issues, that created a domino effect, there is a rational nexus between the requested adjustments, and the applicants have demonstrated the need for the setback adjustments to create a more vibrant pedestrian area. Ms. Mendez stated the main criteria considered states granting the adjustment will equally or better meet the purpose of the regulation to be adjusted", noted the code states "an excellent frontage is one that provides a high level of positive stimulus and interaction for the pedestrian. In an ideal setting, buildings would form a continuous edge, generally up against the outer edge of the right-of-way, with large expanses of glass for pedestrians to see what is happening inside", and stated while the glass does not come against the edge the applicants have created a functional seating area including outdoor dining that gives the impression of activity right up to the edge. Ms. Mendez responded to PB Chair Gallagher's S question as to why the applicants were asking for adjustments to the setbacks stating that ensures the required habitable space remains. Ms. Mendez stated the applicants have demonstrated the criteria that "the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the downtown neighborhood zone district or the proposal will be consistent with the desired character of the Downtown Edge, Downtown Core, and Downtown Bayfront zone districts" and "if more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone" have been met. Ms. Mendez stated staff recommends approval with one standard condition. Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 8 of 13 PB: member Siegel questioned if the indented parking areas on Cocoanut will be eliminated. Ms. Mendez stated substantial modifications to the intersection will occur due to the installation of the roundabout. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the City was concerned about cars backing up at the drop-off. Ms. Mendez stated the applicants have requested a major encroachment agreement for the porte cochere that depends on the design of the roundabout and noted the stacking and routing of vehicles will occur in the City's right-of-way SO some operational control will be maintained. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there were alternatives. Ms. Mendez stated the issues are operational for the most part, particularly how the valet is operated. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if there is any historic significance to the existing building. Ms. Mendez stated there was not. PB member Ahearn-Koch questioned if the two golden oaks would be preserved. Ms. Mendez stated a tree removal/mitigation plan will be required. PB member Svekis questioned if there was a way wording in the staff report that is not staff' S could be noted as such. Ms. Mendez stated she had addressed that by putting the applicant's quotes in quotation marks and italics. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if both Palm and Cocoanut are primary and retail required streets. Ms. Mendez stated both were primary however she was unsure if Cocoanut is retail required. PB Chair Gallagher questioned what the distinction between primary and retail required is and what the added conditions are on the retail required. Ms. Mendez stated there are two added conditions on retail required, one that there has to be office or retail, not residential, at the ground level and noted that is where the awning requirements come in. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the requirement that the frontage is parallel to the street has been met. Ms. Mendez stated it has been. PB Chair Gallagher questioned if the frontage is considered to be at the setback line or the column line. General Manager Smith stated he looked it up and Cocoanut is retail required. Ms. Mendez stated the definition of habitable space which is "Building space whose use involves human presence with direct view of the streets or open space, excluding parking garages and display windows separated from retail activity". PB Chair Gallagher noted that under that definition all of the dining area could be considered habitable space. Ms. Mendez stated that was correct noting the habitable space requirement applies to the first two floors. PB Chair Gallagher stated under the definition of stories if the space is higher than 14' it is considered two stories and requested his question regarding frontage be addressed. Ms. Mendez stated the section on setbacks in the code speaks to the purpose of the required setbacks of promoting streetscapes that are consistent with the desired characteristics of the Downtown districts. PB Chair Gallagher requested clarification as to what is considered the frontage line, is it the columns or the space behind? Ms. Mendez stated the frontage line can be the setback to the habitable space. PB Chair Gallagher stated that means the established space outside is habitable meaning using the column line is ok, SO it works in either case. Ms. Mendez stated there were two paths to the adjustments noting this was the best option due to the habitable space question. Affected Person Testimony: There was no affected person testimony. Minutes of thel Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 9 of 13 Citizen Testimony: Mr. Tony Joseph appeared and stated he lives at Bay Plaza, he is concerned about traffic, primarily emergency vehicle access via Cocoanut, questioned if a traffic study had been completed, discussed the corner of Cocoanut and Palm, and stated if the on- street parking at Florida Studio Theatre was eliminated that would create two open lanes. PB member Siegel questioned if Mr. Joseph was on the board at Bay Plaza and if Bay Plaza has taken an official position and/ or vote on the project. Mr. Joseph stated not that he is aware of, noting the developer had suggested they had been to the board however he does not recall that. PB: member Siegel suggested the citizens find a vehicle to address their concerns to the City. Applicant Rebuttal: Mr. Freedman appeared and stated per City requirements a traffic study. has been completed and is available, noting that was. not presented at this hearing due to the fact it does not apply to the adjustments. Mr. Freedman further stated the tree mitigation plan will be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the building permit process, confirmed both Palm and Cocoanut are retail required streets, and noted the applicant's calculations were based on that. PB Chair Gallagher closed the public hearing. PB member Siegel made a motion to find Adjustment 14-ADP-03 consistent with Section IV-1903 of the Zoning Code and approve the Adjustment with the condition set forth in paragraph one. PB member Lindsay seconded the motion. PB: member Siegel noted the application was for the adjustments only, stated the applicant had adequately explained the need for the adjustments, noted the City's support, and stated he felt the hotel was a marvelous addition to the City. PB: member Lindsay stated he likes the concept, particularly the fact the entrance is on Cocoanut, noting the primary pedestrian experience is on Palm at this time and having the entrance on Cocoanut will spread that out. PB member Lindsay stated the need to be realistic, noted this is an urban area, stated the applicants have done a good job, stated the traffic study addresses the concerns regarding emergency vehicle access, and stated he feels the project compliments the downtown. PB member Ahearn-Koch stated her focus is on "equally or better" / stated she had viewed the site from Bay Plaza, the intersection does not engage pedestrians as it is, noted most builders want to maximize the building's size and usage of the land, stated she appreciates the developer working with the City and engaging the public, she would have liked to have seen the porte cochere across from the garage entrance, the other features on Cocoanut could be maintained without having vehicles backed up, noted she realized that is not part of the adjustments being considered, urged the applicants to use caution as per the traffic backing up through the roundabout creating a domino effect, and stated she supports the motion. PB: member Svekis stated he felt the hotel was a marvelous addition for that part of town, stated his concerns regarding traffic, and noted granting the adjustments furthers the momentum for Cocoanut. PB Chair Gallagher requested Ms. Mendez make herself and the traffic study available to Mr. Joseph, stated he does not see this as a major traffic issue, and stated this will create a Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 10 of 13 much better situation than currently exists noting there will be many ways to re-route yourself. PB Chair Gallagher further stated this is about the pedestrian, part of the pedestrian experience is visual interest, the base level is pedestrian comfort from rain, summer heat, etc., and stated while the letter of the law is being met he recommends the applicants consider extra awning space at the corner and encourages the applicant to revisit the water feature since it pinches the intersection. PB Chair Gallagher stated he supports the motion. Secretary Smith explained the new voting system and requested when the tally appears if a vote is not correct to state SO. Secretary Smith stated the motion was for approval with one condition. Secretary Smith tallied the votes, noted everyone had voted yes, and the PB members verified that was correct. IV. CITIZEN's INPUT NOTICE TO THE. PUBLIC: At this time Citizens may address the Planning Board on topics of concern. Items which have been previously discussed at Public Hearings may not be addressed at this time. (A maximum 5-minute time limit.) There was no citizens input. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. March 12, 2014 PB: member Lindsay stated the second complete paragraph on page eight should reflect that he made mention that the south side of the street is entirely unobstructed with no curb cuts and stated he felt it important for the Commissioners or anyone else reading the minutes to understand the point of the discussion and noted there are no structures there that will be looking for curb cuts. PB member Lindsay also stated the last line should state parking generated by the project will occur on-site rather than on the street". By consensus the minutes were approved with those changes. VI. PRESENTATION OF' TOPICS BY STAFF Items presented are informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Secretary Smith stated City staff did not have any topics for discussion however Mr. Marsh from the School Board, as a member of the Planning Board, would like to speak under topics by the Planning Board. VII. PRESENTATION OF TOPICS BY PLANNING BOARD Items presented are: informational only (no action taken). Any issue presented that may require future action will be placed on the next available agenda for discussion. Mr. Ken Marsh stated his desire to share some professional and personal issues, stated he is retiring at the end of next month, and noted tonight would be his last meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Marsh stated that in 2002 the Florida Legislature amended Chapter Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 11 of 13 163 of the Florida Statutes to mandate all Local Planning Agencies allow a representative from the local School Board to participate as a non-voting member. Mr. Marsh stated the Superintendent appointed him in 2003 to represent the School Board here as well as in the cities of North Port and Venice, and Sarasota County, noted in the early years he attended more. frequently since there was more residential growth and the interlocal agreement with the County and four municipalities was being developed, and in 2007 preparations for school concurrency were being made SO he needed to participate. Mr. Marsh stated he felt that contributed to a greater sense of understanding between the School Board and the City, particularly the Planning Departments, leading to greater trust, cooperation and collaboration for the citizens and mutual taxpayers. Mr. Marsh stated there have been no growth related schools built in the City for a long time, however a number of schools have been rebuilt, citing Alta Vista in 1996 and Brookside in 1999 as examples. Mr. Marsh also stated in 2003-2004 David Smith had a greater role than he does now and worked with the School Board on significant changes to Southside, noted Booker High was completed in 2013, stated the level of collaboration has been palatable, stated the City's participation on the Facilities Strategic Team to implement the interlocal agreement has led to good working relationships, and he expects that will continue with his predecessor. Mr. Marsh stated on a personal note he would like to thank the following for going above and beyond who were instrumental in ensuring projects are superior: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Fournier, Rob Schanley, Steve Stancel, Alex DavisShaw, Ryan Chapdelain, Todd Kurcharski, Linda Strange, Gretchen Schneider, and Lenny Scherry. Mr. Marsh stated Mr. Barwin has been involved in the early work being done on Building 4 at Sarasota High and stated his appreciation for Mr. Barwin's] personal involvement, stated Harvey Hoglund was very instrumental in the rebuilding of Booker High School noting that project would not have been as successful if Harvey had not worked with Miki Ryan of the School Board to make sure Orange Avenue was realigned sO it no longer dissected the campus. Mr. Marsh stated Dr. Cliff Smith was very helpful with the renovations to Southside, Bay Haven and Sarasota High, providing his expertise to ensure the right thing was done, thanked Courtney and David stating they have been very open in giving professional advice, stated hopefully his replacement will be named in the coming weeks and will be working with the Planning Board by this summer, and thanked everyone. PB member Svekis stated he had a personal experience with Mr. Marsh regarding Bay Haven School refurbishment and air conditioning/ mechanical noise problems noting Mr. Marsh attended the annual meeting, listened, and made the School Board a real live thing that had not responded before. PB: member Lindsay stated the aerial map in the packet states on the bottom it was prepared April 2nd, the photo itself is not dated, stated his concerns that at a future date that could become controversial, and stated if the date is not available the map should be stamped "undated". PB member Lindsay further stated professionals should file a C.V. with the City SO that did not have to be done for each case and stated there had been previous discussions regarding that. Attorney Connolly stated it is appropriate to have something on the record, noted his concern is always the issue of competent and substantial evidence, and if the Planning Board is relying on expert testimony that can be challenged at the next level there should be something on the record establishing that expertise and noted City staff has their C.V.'s on record. PB member Lindsay stated professionals like Mr. Freedman, who is there frequently and has academic credentials, Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 12 of 13 should be able to file one time or annually sO when they provide testimony it does not have to part of the printed packet. Attorney Connolly stated that information could be incorporated by reference the same as is done with the Zoning Code. PB: member Siegel stated he would like to talk to the Planning Board members regarding the continuous pattern of activity involving the sunshine law and its ramifications on the City Commission, boards such as the Planning Board, and other activities in that category. PB member Siegel stated from his experience and doing work throughout the country he has never run into a similar situation where a continuous concerted activity by one group to hijack what is intended to be a narrow scope of protection of access to the public, stated when he read the article regarding the Police Board and came to the part where Mogenson recommended that in order to avoid a lawsuit the panel be disbanded, all actions of the Police Board be voided, a review be conducted to ensure similar problems are not occurring on other City boards, and the City pay Citizen's for Sunshine $2,500, he does not like proving a negative and problems that may exist on City boards the way it was phrased assumes other boards or the Planning Board may be doing something in their view that is adverse, stated the way the sunshine law is being enforced is what is called an absolute liability, stated the legal profession is based on adversary relationships and when dealing with legal issues each side gets an opportunity to formulate early on what their position is and what they put forth as a defense. PB member Sigel noted the importance of character, stated the City has to tell board members if they will cover expenses if a member is thrown into one of these situations, stated he had received six phone calls from people he knows that are serving on boards, everyone should know where they stand if someone makes a demand, this has already been done to two Planning Board members who were not aware of what happened, they were never told or received an apology for having their names included on a public document and stated board members need to know where they stand, and the City legal department needs to think through a new approach, recommended outside council be brought in that could bring in creative thinking, and stated to continue to enable them by agreeing to their requests and demands financially we will never tame down the problem, stated his comments are being made based on the best interest of the City, and someone has to come forward and let people know there is a downside to them other than waiting to see if a court will grant attorney fees. PB: member Ahearn-Koch questioned Attorney Connolly on appropriateness of responding to PB member Siegel's comments. Attorney Connolly stated other Planning board members can comment, just cannot take action. PB: member Ahearn-Koch stated SO best not to comment. PB member Lindsay stated that is not what he said, just can't vote, he is not sure that is true if the vote: is internal to refer an issue to the City Commission and the Planning Board is not taking action that spends money, etc., stated he had comments he would like to make, one of which is things are to the point it borders on harassment, it is going to be very difficult to get people to sit on boards, he goes to a lot of political functions and does not know in advance if other Planning Board members will be there, and the implication under the lawsuits is every person has to be pre-cleared. PB member Lindsay stated it is getting to the point of absurd. Attorney Connolly stated the sunshine law applies to discussions and deliberations in a decision making process about matters that are reasonably foreseeable to come before your board, there are people in Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting April 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. in the Sarasota City Commission Chambers Page 13 of 13 town that have a much broader interpretation and they know where the courthouse is and how to sue. PB member Svekis stated the net result is if a weakness is found in the system it will never end. PB member Siegel stated there are things that can be done, he has talked to colleagues, the City needs to take a new look, reach out to others, put together options, criteria, and talk about it in open sessions SO the green light does not continue to encourage the activity, and if someone knows there is a downside to what they are doing like putting someone on the stand for three days and going at them real good, he does not think a lot of people like that. Attorney Connolly recommended PB member Siegel watch the City Commission meeting from Monday night, stated the issue was discussed and its going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to go through the litigation to put someone on the stands for three days, and if the Commission wants to do that then SO be it, that is fine, but to this point the Commission's decisions have not been to spend a million dollars on litigation. PB member Siegel questioned where that puts the Planning Board members. PB member Lindsay stated it puts things at the standpoint of people, personal injury attorneys, that advertise on buses and taxi cabs, who really just take the quick and dirty cases to insurance companies for a cheap settlement because it is cheaper to just pay them than fight it. PB: member Siegel stated what he is asking is if any one of us were to get a demand and say no way is anyone getting hold of my computer, noted first of all they would have to go through the Justice Department because he has a confidential agreement with them because of the work he does up there, SO no-one except the Justice Department is going to see his computer, who is going to pay his costs and expenses? Attorney Connolly stated he could not answer that, he is not the City Commission and does not have a vote. PB member Siegel stated back to Bob's point eventually we will lose a lot of good people. Attorney Connolly stated that is the risk, the decision made was to reject the offer, and noted the item was the last on Monday night's agenda. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 25k Dand David Smith, General Manager - Integration Chris Gallagher, Chair Neighborhood & Development Services Planning Board/Local Planning Agency [Secretary to the Board]